TwoHeadedBoy

QFT, and because it made me lol. I bickered with you a lot Arcanaville but I hope you know I appreciate all your contributions to the game and I enjoyed all of our spirited debates. This post was a great read.

There's nothing my Fire/Ment can do on beta that my Arch/Ment couldn't do on live, albeit slightly slower. Unfortunately I moved all my high end enhancements from my Arch/Ment to my Fire/Ment on live in anticipation for i24. Woe is me.

It's not an issue of all trees for me, lol. For the record this is an incident involving a single tree in a single place, with all settings comfortably on max; it's a tree outside the Vanguard building in either FF or PI- Which of the two I can't recall. My handy mini map in the screen says PI though.

I noticed it on one of my few ventures Blueside. I bet you guys can find it too.

I always argued for Blasters with a stance of potential outweighing percieved deficiencies. As an illustration, I offer to you the following.

How many builds are capable of farming and power leveling at high end speeds, soloing some of the toughest enemy groups in the game on maximum settings (see video evidence,) competing in high end Pylon DPS standings up until the bitter end,soloing Giant Monsters without temps or inspirations, and tanking and soloing Incarnate Trial spawns (absorbing alpha strikes comfortably at the very least) with ease?

I submit to you, only ONE Archetype is capable of "all of the above." It is, at its currently defined epitome, the Archery/Mental/Mu Blaster. In and after i24, however, it would be the Fire/Mental/Mu Blaster.

Blasters, for all of their deficiencies and grievances, for all their percieved flaws and design atrocities... Blasters, after a tangent and a war on the fundamental principle of their existence in the first place in many cases, still reign supreme.

Is a God Mode Blaster as simple to comprehend and control as a SS/Fire Brute? No, absolutely not. I have a purpled out, high end SS/Fire/Soul Brute, and a TW/FA/Soul Scrapper to go with it. Both are the result of innumerable stacks of billions of influence into ideal builds, the best conceivable well rounded constructs for the given easy mode archetypes at the height of their performance. And still, they do not measure up to my Blaster's potential.

No, as a player who had the best of the best of everything in terms of character performance, I can tell you that COH will die with a simple truth. That Blasters, against all odds, predefined notions of insufficiency and convolution- Blasters, against all the hurdles that we, as a community chose to place before them, are in the end the ultimate Archetype.

For which other Archectype can beat the game by itself?

Ponder that question for a minute.

If you've reached the threshold of success in this game, as many of us have, you dual wield a SS/Fire Brute and an Ill/Rad Controller.

Between the two of these invested in, purpled and incarnated characters, there is no individual task which you cannot achieve all by yourself.

Well, the optimized and well planned and executed /Mental Blaster bests the end results of both, if you're looking at "can perform x task, cannot perform y task."

The Blaster can do all of the above, and at not only "jack of all trades, automatic middle ground" rates. The Blaster can compete with the best results on all fronts.

It's such a shame that the ultimate Archetype was consistently bogged down by an inability to play it, and a lack of willingness to invest in its potential. Blasters themselves are not to blame for your lack of infamy or ingenuity.

You just weren't trying hard enough.

I know Kennedy is popular but he created the first ever non recession peacetime deficit in the history of the country by increasing the size of the federal budget. Kennedy also forced companies to keep their prices down which is not exactly good for economic freedom.

That being said, he also cut income taxes and the corporate tax across the board. For all the lines he overstepped, he was still a capitalist who believed in markets.

It was pretty much all downhill from there. Lyndon Johnson was a train wreck, depleting our currency and leaving Nixon with an unresolved war and a deficit. Granted Nixon didn't help either- He literally reneged the value of our currency (removing the option to convert the US dollar to gold) and he did it with a democrat designed monetary policy. It didn't do anyone any good either.

Gerald Ford was a Republican, and also a bit of an idiot. He screwed up by doing exactly what Obama is doing, spending on government programs and raising taxes during a deficit. The difference being that he actually decided to get it right eventually and cut taxes and slash spending, only to bail out New York City.

Next up is Jimmy Carter, the worst president in US history, and on the blue team. I'm pretty sure losing to Ronald Reagan in the worst clobbering in US history says enough. Reagan was the first two term president since Nixon, and the first quality president since Eisenhower. I wish you'd included the years of post WWII growth in your figures, instead of starting in an era where all Republican presidents advocated Democratic economic policies up to Ronald Reagan in 81.

Bush Sr. failed to capitalize off of the conditions Reagan left for him because of a Democrat controlled Congress, but he just kept dropping the ball and siding with the blue team from there. He was a disgrace and a pushover. And surprise, after enacting the democrat's budget, another recession. Increased taxes lead to layoffs, more unemployed lead to Keynesian spending, and Republicans hated George HW Bush. He was not reelected for a reason.

Democrats must have secretly loved Bush Sr. at the time, because after a Republican president failed horribly with their economic policies, it was their turn again.

But to be fair, Clinton wasn't really that bad. He cut taxes, cut spending and balanced the budget. Republicans kept him in check on his failed attempt at socializing health care. Honestly, I like Bill Clinton, although there are some things I don't like about him. I consider him to be a good president.

We all know that George Bush Jr. was fiscally retarded, but he was still probably the best leader our country had since Reagan. People love to remember his failed economic policies, which were the opposite of fiscal conservatism- Namely deficit spending. But everyone likes to forget that when our country was attacked by terrorists his approval rating went above 90%, and for good reason. That being said, we can probably all agree that the Iraq war was irresponsible.

First of all, I can't stand the Muslim/birth certificate conspiracy theories. I think it's atrocious character assassination. While I don't agree with Obama's economic policies at all and I think he's the worst president since Jimmy Carter, I don't doubt for one second that he believes that he's acting in the best interest of the country, and he's probably a really good person.

That being said, you're pulling some convenient figures here. Let's look where it counts. Multi billion dollar stimulus packages, socializing the housing market, too big to fail banks, doubling Bush Jr's deficit through irresponsible Keynesian spending. It's no wonder our currency rating got downgraded for the first time in history. We almost went into default and had to raise the debt ceiling because of this complete lack of fiscal restraint. And where has all of this really gotten us? Unemployment at or above (Now I think slightly below) 8%, and more public debt than every other administration combined.






And don't forget what things will look like if Obama is reelected. First of all, I invite everyone to look at this to see how much your taxes will increase by if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire:

http://www.commonsensecapitalism.com...-taxes-if.html

And then there's this.

I was responding to this:

This is what passes as political awareness for liberals: Tedious character attacks and taking statements out of context. I figured I'd ground this guy a bit.
Then don't vote.
Close enough.

Seriously? Look at this suave gentleman!

You know what they currently are. How you think they should be is immaterial, especially someone like you who can probably cite specific sections of the EULA from memory. You clicked "I agree," right? I really can't understand your whole consumer rights angle when you as a consumer agreed to conditions that you apparently didn't find agreeable. I think you should own your decisions.

Actually, that's essentially what the world already does. In the US we have very strict labor and wage laws that make it economically infeasible for the majority of American owned companies to manufacture affordable products here and still turn an optimal profit. This leads to outsourcing of jobs to places like China, ie: places with labor standards that we consider unethical in our country. We don't boycott trade with them or do anything to alter their laws even though we find them morally disagreeable.

I don't have an "attack strategy." In fact, I have little to no interest in conversing with you at all. I'm just glad you took your TOS-Man cape off.